Thank you! I'm impressed that I got any kind of greeting at all that fast, never mind a non-automated one. So far so good. Also, I can point out right now that I do mean to add actual stuff to the wiki as well (sourcing statements and clarifying/improving upon exisiting content in accordance with the RW ethos and goal). But as of now, I have to google instructions on almost everything - including how to reply here! So I'm not going to be going on a new page creation spree anytime soon. Also, please communicate to me what I do wrong if I break any rules or just do things in an unoptimized way. I'm here to learn about wiki handling (but thankfully I'm here to ADD about rationality and scientific scepticism). So educate me and help me educate, I 'spose. :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You won't find any automated greeting messages here. Don't forget to sign all talk page posts, even those on your own talk page, by typing ~~~~. And there's no "e' in "choir". Spud (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Right as rain! Also, thank you. I've read the FAQ's and stuff and obviously I don't expect anyone to lead me through everything I do here. But just for the record, anything and everything I do here is with good intentions and it's entirely plausible that I'd only break something as a result of being a wiki noob. Here's me trying to follow your instruction, let's see how it pans out. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

By convention, the go at the bottom of the page, after the see also, footnotes, etc., though usually they are place above categories in the wikitext, and of course the categories will display after them either way unless you hide them. WalkerWalkerWalker 13:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This needs some additional explaining. I thought proper Wiki formatting included making all cquotes italic? For what it's worth, it looks about a trillion bazillion times better when they are. *sweat pearl* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

PS. I'm really not trying to be a douche here. I'm literally just adding proper italics to cquotes until I understand any eventual reasons or rules against this practice. Just putting it out there in case I missed some major rule against making cquotes look super good with italics. *massive huge sweat bead* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

RW is a law unto itself in a lot of cases. Scream!! (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Big enough deal for me to offer to italicize every single quote on this site in exchange for making beautiful italic quotes the new standard (delicious)? If not however, I WILL de-italicize every single quote on the site, although not as an aimed effort. But we need consistency. Has there been a voting process on wether or not to make quotes italic? I know regular wikipedia doesn't italicize them - which I always thought looked badbadbadbadbad. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record - I've given up on the italics and I am proceeding at a steady rate with conforming all cquotes on the site to the non-italic, proper format. Beggining with reverting the italics I myself had installed here and there. #Effort Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"minor" edits are generally understood to be spelling or small grammar corrections - not e.g. 500+ char quotes. I suspect that you have the gadget checked in your preferences - it might be an idea to uncheck it. Scream!! (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Allright, duly noted! I've been unsure wether or not to check or uncheck that box sometimes, as I'm on that ambition level where I'm rewriting/restructuring entire articles (Christopher Hitchens/Edison/Stopped Clock/Prayer/etc) and see that kind of effort as "normal level". But you're right, it's mostly been slipping my mind. I'll be sure to uncheck that unless I'm literally doing formatting stuff like spellchecks and whatnot. Thanks for the heads up! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

for the notification to your recent Left Behind edit. I am not sure that it would have been any great loss had my edit disappeared forever. Sort of like the series its self. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if it wouldn't have been, that wasn't up to me to judge by just rolling back stuff for no reason. But again, it was a pure mislick (I wish rollback had a confirmation form before actually rolling back). I'm prone to making mistakes, so I make a point out of communicating and apologizing (when proper). ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think it should not be on Science article? 198.16.164.205 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, aside from what has been said on your talk page, that particular quote has nothing to do with a summary of "Science" at all. It's a quote on the history of science, and if such a section existed in the science article, it would have a place there (in exchange for it not being used on Ibn al-Haytham's own article). I think the quote fits far better on his rather stub article than in the Science article, and no matter how you slice it, the quote does not belong in the opening summary of the science article. Please stop edit warring that article. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I did kind of overshoot that deadline huh? Damn demonic forces, always one step ahead. I'll reply today as in: it's currently 20:50 in Sweden, and I'll have it done before bedsies at 4AM. But I'll probably get to it before midnight. Jokes aside though, thanks for holding me to my word. And I'll do my best to make the reply decently worthwhile. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hold on deleting, old timer. Real life interrupted the very important internet argument. Did that sound sarcastic? If it did, I've wasted my life. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dropped the man a line now, just to see if he's even going to check in before I literally dive into his material. Until I hear from him, if I do, the discussion is obviously shelved.

Nice, but his original block should be cleared by now. Hope he does something else, then I can block him again for longer. Scream!! (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks old bean, I'd just witnessed his cringeworthy behavior and your resulting tours in the block log, and I happened to see that he created his like 6th dummy account with basically an added number or letter (where is awkward penguin when you need him?), so I NOPE'd him pretty hard right away. You want me to leave the ban in place for his most recent creation? I can't see why this guy is even let back in this side of September, but what do I know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, leave the block in place. Let him dig is own permaban with his original ID. Scream!! (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You got it old timer. He'll get to Check It Out on his own. Dr Steve BruleReverend Black Percy (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend changing HTTPS links to HTTP. HTTPS is a Good Thing. The padlock icons can be disabled in the site CSS. See [1]. The icons are removed by default now in the latest Mediawiki releases. If you want this you might want to raise the issue at Rationalwiki:Technical support. --Ymir (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, HTTPS is a great thing (as thin a layer of security as it is, it's obviously far better than cleartext). I'd wager you're a lucky fellow Ymir, because I'm computer savvy enough that I understand what you just wrote and linked me to. Not everyone would get what you were on about, though. Regardless, you make a good point. I've been running the SSL Observatory for ages now (the Pale Moon fork). I advise everyone to run that, among (few) other addons. I force HTTPS as much as I can. I'd like to point out that, in the article in question, all those linkouts should very clearly be changed to refs anyway - as of now they litter the page completely, making it look pretty ass. I'll probably have to clean that up myself. Anyways, I didn't mean to go on some crusade against HTTPS. I was rushing to work, so I didn't have time to write "will somebody please make refs out of this crow's nest". Anyways, duly noted. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your kind words and insight into my essay. And apologize for my 'kindred spirit's behavior. I didn't take your comment as offense or disrespectful, and honestly hadn't even thought of trying that sort of test! If I do try it out, I'll be sure to let you know!

You don't need to apologize for my behaviour; I was not the one firing insultive quips and making baseless accusations in that discussion. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Hello Onychoprion! Let me just drop everything and come right out and say this: I was - quite honestly - both appalled and saddened to see how what was an undebatable compliment and friendly thumbs up meant for you to enjoy was getting buried in the verbal excrement of a known disruptor, a burial process I sadly participated in - though simply in the form of folding out an umbrella to guard myself from the BoN shitstorm. I can't apologize for defending myself, but I'm sorry the process had to take place at all - even the intended talkpage of your essay deserved better. The opposite of the response to your brave and illuminating story that I wanted you to know and see. This is the first time I've seen the suggestion of being a kindred spirit turn into an insult by the same person who just suggested the same. Though naturally all us humans share an unbreakable kinship, angsty or not. Some, however, find it easier to destroy than to create in life. In time, these confused rebels without a cause will have to mature or find themselves on the brink. Worth noting is that he'd pounced on you even on my very own talk page - anything to make random acts of kindness seem toxic. Thankfully, on my talk page, we won't have to be subjected to his tirades. The fact that he never found the chance to literally take time and be nice once just the sake of it, through all of this, amazes me still. Anyways, I don't mean to carry on further about the negative side to all this. Your essay is great, and I'll take the time to read through any future updates you may wish to invest it with. Well done, buddy. I'll also be sure to get back to you in the topic of aphrodisiacs - it's a fascinating class of compounds, the ones that do work. I'll do my best to provide you with a comprehensive review as "money back" for having suffered through that previous atrocity. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I got the rules for the talk page and the user page confused. Thank you for reverting that portion, BoN. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's imagine that I want to create three paragraphs indented one space from this point. I put one colon in front of para one and then some text. I put another colon where I want para two two to begin and so on. In other words you create a new indent point where you want each paragraph to start.

Wow, thanks Bob! I appreciate that you took the time to show me this - in retrospect obvious - formatting technique. You're doing your part by helping make my epic poetry of divine justice more readable! You've already said you're no jockey yourself - which I respect entirely - but; best of all is when rekt bullies can only resort to critiquing my formatting. Kind of like a criminal on trial being reduced to complaining about the "ugly decor in the courthouse" as the most plausible point in his hopeless defense. Anyways, thanks again old timer. I'll put these to use shortly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken about who rekt who on those pages, but by all means boast as much as you'd like to. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Right, so standing up to bullying is "boastful" by your definition, then? I'm genuinely asking if there's any situation imaginable to you wherein you would have to concede that standing up to you wasn't atleast intrinsically incorrect. I'll be the first to say that my positions are always worthy of challenging, and I expect others to demand explanations from me. Humans make mistakes and act irrationally all the time - which is different from genuinely toxic behaviour, as has been the case several times (see sources). You're free to redact your sourced statements, and/or provide clarifications on them, and/or generally apologize for your documented conduct towards me, and I'd be the first in line to consider the score settled. A reputation is hard to build, but easy to demolish - consider that in the future, and you may decide against continually placing yourself in the most certainly quite frustrating position of having your schadenfreude openly negated. Never vindictive but always vigilant, - all the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol, bullying? Any criticism not phrased in the friendliest and most eloquent of terms is bullying to you, it seems. Don't we have an article on that? That you ever felt the need to "stand up" to me illuminates your problem of jumping into grandstanding/vitriolic defensiveness mode at the drop of a beat. I encourage you to read these "sources" again and consider if some of your own behaviour isn't toxic in its own right. And don't take this comment as bullying or a request for more defensive/vindictive blocks of text; it's neither. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

You come off as feeling rather persecuted, yourself. I recently thanked you in all sincerity for helping me with the paragraphs (and not only you), and as recently as yesterday, I agreed in a fully civil manner with you on another talk page. The term bully is one of weight, I'll agree, yet coming to find me just to contest me is a notably questionable tendency that may or may not approach that manner of terminology. But I digest. What's really on my mind is that I'd like to reiterate that I'm not "after you" in any sense of the word. As is generally the case, you skip the large portions of text where I suggest reasonable and amicable ways that we may bury the hatchet. I'm not after any sort of vendetta, believe you me, and I certainly agree that I've fought fire with fire. So I'll just take the opportunity and make myself vulnerable once more, and we'll see what choices you make based on that. I'm willing to scrap my new user page (really, I just wanted to do something with it), and I'd be willing to - as I've insisted already - make renewed efforts to not hasten into misunderstandings and the willful invention of conflict (something I'd wager all sides think the other is doing). You can answer "yes", "no", anything really - including mean tactics such as accusing this of being an admission of guilt or anything like that. All you can do is either not reply, or provide an honest reply, and whatever that may be, is what you've chosen to do. If nothing else - if you'd be willing to agree that any and all conflict between us, outside of specific arguments, is a waste, negative and in other ways detrimental and tiresome, I'd agree. I do not seek conflict, nor do I feel anything but comfortable and open. I don't feel that I'm run into a corner. I feel that, even in that context of thought, I stood my ground and shattered the oncomers. I feel about as cornered as I imagine a boulder feels when waves clash against it. Not very. And, again, if you argue that you don't mean anything toxic or the likes, then that's good - because whatever delusions you may suspect I've fallen under, it can't possible be good for anyone to add a sense of persecution to that mix. And in the scenario that we'd be able to discuss this with a friendly and well-meaning tone (regardless of how bruised one or both of us may feel), naturally that would undermine any charges of bullying, which would - on the continuation of that nicely intended conversation - be dropped by me instantly. Just for the record. A vulnerable position, no doubt. So again, let's see how you use this. I implore you to use it well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just a bystander here, and it's probably stupid for me to be dipping into this drama, but your "reasonable and amicable ways" all seem to forego the notion that you, personally, could have been in the wrong at all, and require 142 to apologize to you. That's conquest, not compromise. Furthermore, and this is not at all to say 142 hasn't done it to (they have), you definitely have an issue with holding grudges with multiple users, and citing a litany of past slights any time someone criticizes that behavior.

What I mean is, like, chill dood. You keep attacking people for disagreeing with you. It's not productive.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello KrytenKoro! Thank you for taking the time to write to me - I do mean that. I say with tounge-in-cheek that though you were a bystander, you decided to offer your two cents on the issue, thus taking a stand in it. A move I welcome, for the record. It appears to me that you base your position entirely on the idea that this exact section of my talk page - and my humorous user page - is somehow fully representative of the times I've made myself vulnerable in order to accomodate an olive branch (or even a gesture of the sligthest reciprocity) from 142. This is not the case, and for the record, even now I re-iterate that I don't mean to make any unecessary enemies on this site, nor to indulge in any tiresome "drama", but that I do pledge to always take a person up on a supposed "peace offering" (for lack of a better word) and further pledge to always defend myself with style and mordant wit when any given individual indefensibly decides to flush their own misery in my direction. Let me put your fears to rest immediately. I'm going to juxtapose your quotes with mine now - it'll be fun! You said;

"[...] your "reasonable and amicable ways" all seem to forego the notion that you, personally, could have been in the wrong at all [...]"

Though just above, I clearly state that;

"I'll be the first to say that my positions are always worthy of challenging, and I expect others to demand explanations from me. Humans make mistakes and act irrationally all the time - which is different from genuinely toxic behaviour, as has been the case several times (see sources)."

You further state;

"That's conquest, not compromise."

Though just above, I clearly point out that 142 has a litany of options at his disposal to do anything but continue pursuing his conflict-inductive M.O. (read: being immovably abrasive and then skipping out on the whole discussion);

"You're free to redact your sourced statements, and/or provide clarifications on them, and/or generally apologize for your documented conduct towards me, and I'd be the first in line to consider the score settled."

You further state;

"[...] you definitely have an issue with holding grudges with multiple users, and citing a litany of past slights any time someone criticizes that behavior."

There are many beautifully rendered sections to quote from right above you here, but to pick one;

"If nothing else - if you'd be willing to agree that any and all conflict between us, outside of specific arguments, is a waste, negative and in other ways detrimental and tiresome, I'd agree. I do not seek conflict, nor do I feel anything but comfortable and open. I don't feel that I'm run into a corner."

Finally, you leverage the following accusation against me (no offense taken);

"You keep attacking people for disagreeing with you. It's not productive."

While I'm not at all upset that you would accuse me of that even in error, I'm going to simply suggest that you read the nature of my interactions with other, non-vindictive RW editors, for example by viewing my conduct on the various talk pages and - obviously - the rest of my interactions on this very talk page. I don't get the impression that I'm making a lot of enemies at all, which is another reason why I've reacted with charisma and confidence when 142 decided to semi-randomly invent series of criticisms against me. So while we've shown your concerns to be unfounded, I'd like to suggest on a whim that you - who, after all, decided to atleast vocalize your relative interest in what has taken place - read the following essay talk page. Just read it, start to finish. Then, without pausing, you may wish to read this particular section of my talk page. Notice also that my instant reaction on the essay talk page was rightfully spurred by a series of condescending and minimizing jabs taken at me by 142. Never mind that in this very thread, 142 decided to provide no answer to my very genuine offers of just dropping the fingerpointing and shaking hands. Though I'll state right now that it's never too late for him to say something nice in my book. I'm just going to continue being as honest and humanitarian as I possibly can, and hope that he doesn't decide to give me a hard time despite my best intentions. Thank you for your time. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not based on just this page, or even just your conversations with that user. The only reason I decided to comment was because I've seen this feud popping up across the site, derailing conversations into petty back-and-forth bickering. Saying you're gonna be a nice guy to people isn't the same as being one, and the thing I noticed after observing what you did rather than said is that your grudges are a huge impediment to reaching anything with discussion threads. You are by far not the only one here doing this (half the editors at this site seem to hate the other half), and it doesn't even mean that your positions are wrong, but yeah, it's an impediment, not a badge of pride.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, your accusations as specifically leveraged against me are not based on anything tangible whatsoever, a fact which becomes all the more evident as you meagerly replied to my masterfully sourced statement above with nothing but frowny unspecifics and general vagueness concerning how "I'm not the only one" doing whatever it is that you rather abrasively still chose to specifically accost me about? All the while enjoying a fully amicable and honorable disposition from me, none the less allowing yourself to persist in unflattering claim-making against me with no better moral support than frankly condescending platitudes such as;

"Saying you're gonna be a nice guy to people isn't the same as being one..."

followed by logical incoherencies like;

"...and the thing I noticed after observing what you did rather than said..."

as if "saying" and "doing" aren't both "writing", as if we're not communicating entirely through text here. This, in itself, exemplifies how beefing up your arguments too frivolously with nothing but hot air effectively accomplishes the opposite result and waters down said arguments significantly. Though you're not wrong in your observation that this vendetta directed against me has had the unfortunate result of derailing otherwise completely reciprocal discussions. And I'm aware, as you correctly point out, that the tone argument is in itself fallacious. And by the way - regarding your (predictably vague) accusations against me of somehow "holding grudges" in situations where I'm repeatedly on record actively seeking solutions, and - adding insult to injury - trying to, via minimisation, explain away my justified and necessary self-defense as me being some kind of querulant on the offense? The next time you bring that kind of entitled whining to my talkpage, please make extra sure that atleast that time you're not just taking forever to say nothing. Good day. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the offer (I take that as a vote of confidence), and it's totally cool that you're doing that porting work, but I'm actually pretty tied up as it is. Though I did improve the summary of the 200 reasons article just now. I'm going to expand into doing a lot more bible/religion contributions during the coming 3-4 months, and I've already got a few article works-in-progress for RW (unsubmitted so far) including an expansion to the article on one of our most prolific cranks by something like 100,000+ symbols and 70+ sources (all of them dug up by myself and not copied from any other place! Fully original writing for RW.). So my plate is full for now old timer. Also, when are we going to wrap up yourour essay? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I kind of like the old top-line title better. If you don't know it's a reference to the good old John Birch Society tract None Dare Call it Conspiracy, which helped popularize the idea of the unified conspiracy theory. Also I'm not sure the bottom title makes sense, as that section lists conspiracy theorists. I do know that there's some infighting among various flavors of conspiracy theorists, with them calling everyone who disagrees a shill, even believers in other conspiracies (pace Alex Jones), but I'm not sure the average reader will really pick up on that. --Ymir (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the reference to that exact tract, and I thought it was pretty funny the first time I read it. I won't fight you if you want to revert that particular part. I was also thinking about calling the theorists "Last hope for mankind" or "Humanity's last hope", but then I decided the shill joke (that you obviously got - about their infighting) might be funnier. What about "Waking the sheeple" for that bottom headline? I added that now instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, epic weight loss! Let's hope the man gains some health from this lifestyle change, rather than it being caused by health failure (e.g. a tumor). And I'll be sure to keep an eye on that diet page, as I do with your sandbox in general. Good stuff, my friend. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir on this one, but thanks! It's sometimes easy to forget how many of the problems in society, ones which the apaloid human brain endessly seeks to explain in terms of "race", that have already been solved - and better so - in terms of economics. I appreciate your time taken, Fedora. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that you shared my interest in the "Targeted Individuls" phenomenon. Please see my talk page here. If this is something you'd enjoy working on with me, that'd be great.---Mona- (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Most certainly! As an actively neutral party in the inflammations on RW, and as someone who generally means the best for everyone here, I'm just going to suggest that it could possibly be a nice change of tune for you to adress a topic as consensus-oriented on RW as that of "targeted individuals" (aka, unmedicated psychiatry patients)? Though I say that simply in the same way a little old lady would suggest that you put on a scarf in case it's cold outside - I'm not making any calls on anything but the things I do make calls on. Either way, I've got some notes for you (and then some) on the topic at hand; give me a few days or more or less to maybe toss something together. Oh, and thanks for the invite, for the record. I'm really just here for the woo and the nonsense, so this is much fun for me. All the best. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I also love the woo, and this particular crew of nutbars got under my skin. I frequent a lot of sites about the NSA, Edward Snowden, and basically the whole Global Surveillance Apparatus. That universe of topics draws these nuts like flies and they can overwhelm comments sections if not modded. You literally cannot falsify any of their claims because the government hides its actions too well; link to a Targeted Individual site saying something they find wrong or embarrassing and they'll say the government plants lots of psy-op sites to discredit them. They can't provide evidence that the government's microwave weapons are "touchlessly torturing" them with intense burning and thus requiring them to sleep in a bed filled with ice -- there is no evidence because, well, because reasons. Give me a few days to focus on this and I'll start an article and alert you. In the meantime, and if you can, check out some of their (millions of) sites for a real woo-fest and get a sense of their particular shade of unhinged. And Thanks!---Mona- (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rev, I've got a stub. Add as you will and I should have the mojo now to keep going, once I've defeated that intimidating blank page!---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Rev, do you have any objections if I continue this afternoon with the "kernel of truth" TI section? It's about the things that actually exist that they take and run with and not about the mental health stuff.---Mona- (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry about undoing you previously, I was editing from my phone whilst in the tub (T.M.I. thursday!) and I already knew that I was about to toss my hat into the ring with some momentum on the talk page for the TI article. At which point I saw that you were about to spend time on it from your PoV, which drove me to utter a George Takei "Oh my!" (of worry) since I didn't want you to spend time making edits when there was a reply to you that was just around the corner from me, one that I hope will help enrich your current PoV... thus warranting a little friendly warning from me before you'd start spending time on it that, even in theory, would risk being "wasted" (though I really mean "used less efficiently than otherwise", I don't mean "wasted"). I'm going to write you said reply and I think that it may or may not alter large portions of your PoV - we've yet to see where we actually differ on the details after I post said reply - which may propel you towards chosing to maybe hang on a bit, or not. I'm not twisting your arm here or anything, naturally I'm not stopping you from doing anything you like on the article. But with the risk of rollbacks hanging in the air, even in theory, I felt obliged to insist that we discuss further, atleast before you edit it in accordance with your PoV. Now, to answer your question - I thank you for taking the time to ask me, and I can sum it up thusly: Any and all TI sources you have is great. Collect those. In fact, we should start a source dump on the talkpage (under a new headline) into which we may paste quite a number of links that musn't be added right away. The very presence of this unsorted list will enrich the debate on the talkpage by helping us all to get settled into the curious case of the TI's, and each others' PoV. So, I can't force you to do or not do anything (though I appreciate the question). But my suggestion is that if the brunt of what you mean to add right now is sourced material, bunch the sources on the talk page and we'll talk. But if there's anything you feel is really bigger than just the sources (e.g. you had a snappy text figured out that the sources would hook onto) then by all means write a new segment on the page ("kernel of truth") and we'll treat that like a draft (as we do all articles, naturally). Also, just a thought. I think it may be important to separate TI's from the legitimate worry of NSA's overarching surveillance and other genuine risks to privacy and security. I'm aware of the concept of inverse totalitarianism and so on, and I'd just like to underline that we need to separate actual anti-big brother points we have from the TI article, as the TI narrative is dangerously easy to feed if you concede points to them, and as they should be seen primarily as a deluded movement the points of which is not in any sense descriptive of the real world (in my view, which I will argue for on the talk page). So, that's my two cents. Thanks in advance. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Rev. Yeah, I can start a source dump on the talk page, that's a good idea. And believe me, I am the LAAAST person who would want to undermine legitimate concern about the NSA and it's "collect it all" global surveillance apparatus. I don't have heroes, but if I did Ed Snowden would be #1 on my list.---Mona- (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

While a #1 placement would't be realistic in my book (considering the diverse fruit of all of history, such as Norman Borlaug, Albert Einstein, Socrates and so on...) I must agree on a more general level that Snowden is - regardless - a huge fucking hero to me. Anyhow; it's very important that the fact that we don't have a unified Government Surveillance (or similarly titled) article (instead being left with a numberofdisparatepagesonthetopic) doesn't confuse us into trying to any element of the TI article into the embryo of anything that actually covers the reality of government surveillance or the likes. (For the record, making such an article should be our top priority, and it would be glorious). But unified such article or no; we still have a responsibility to cover that surveillance conclusively, and we in fact have a similarly large responsilibility to draw an ocean wide line between the TI phenomenon and the real - and, admittedly, big and scary - topic that is the intelligence communities of the world and everything related. TI's, however, are as relevant to this actual surveillance or the development of these world affairs in any sense whatsoever as creationists are to actual development and progress of the cutting edge of the natural sciences; not at all. The creationists, as the TI's, have simply hooked on to an issue (obsessively or not) that they cannot hinder themselves from speaking at from the outside of it - entirely without understanding even a word of the actual topic at hand - and while actively resisting that any light be shed on their own motives, as they represent the forces of good and it's us outside of their intellectually introverted fringe community that are - in the best case just misunderstanding them, in the worst case actively being "the bad guys" by combating them. And yet, to them, it's still us and not them that need to explain and re-explaining ad nauseum while getting nowhere. These people are wired in such a way that they cannot readily believe in reality. It's not about evidence anymore. These are people who sometimes only get better with Haloperidol (or, obviously, antipsychotics in general) and the brains of whom can only be reasoned so far as the delusion self-propagates in their heads. While I'm not saying they're all psychotic, and certainly not all the time, I'd wager that as far as self-recruitment into this particular movement by genuinely untreated psychiatry patients goes, the TI movement has got to have some insane over-representation in that demographic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have the perfect segue into making a distinction between actual, important concern about the NSA on the one hand, and the TI weirdo on teh other. Bill Binney is an oustanding former NSA mathematician and whistelblower. He's extensively highlighted in the 2014 documentary, Citizenfour -- about Edward Snowden and his meeting with journalists in Hong Kong. (The documentary won the 1014 Oscar.) Binney has never, even sort of, indicated any belief in this TI bullshit, except that he spoke about the NSA at their first convention in Germany last year! This horrifies me and I'd like to criticize his willingness to appear there. Spreading the message everywhere is one thing, but we shouldn't be aligning ourselves with manifest cranks who can make us all look like fools.---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness; I didn't know Bill Binney would even dignify a phone call from the TI cranks, never mind appear at one of their meetings. Surely the man has fallen off the rocker if that's true. Though, as everyone must realise, being intelligent is no immunization from falling for the nuttiest of crankery. It's all in the presentation of the crankery and the cognitive biases of the listener at that particular time. As Plato put it (for all the nonsense he said) "Rhetoric is how you defeat good arguments with bad ones.". Anyhow, I'm a little unsure as the position you think that I have... my entire point was that we not confuse the nuttery with the real NSA issue, and - importantly - that we not actually cover the NSA issue in the TI article. Because, like creationism to physics, the TI article isn't about the real NSA issue anyways. That's their latch-on topic, certainly, but the article on them needs to describe all the ways they are not scientists, never mind uncontroversially "sane". If you share that point, that's great. I think where we diverge is that I'm very much in favor of the suggestion that the bulk of the entire TI movement are sufferers of various mental illnesses, and who resist that fact. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, as I look into it, Binney did NOT appear at that conference. He is said to have appeared at the conferences 2014 page, and he is announced on a few TI web sites, but the links going to the speakers page do not actually include him. They may have merely showed one of his many video-taped interviews but there's no evidence I can find that he was there in person. In fact, they had had to remove the video content at the 2015 conference website for breaching its "terms of use." I'll bet you they were name-dropping him without knowledge or permission. Whew!---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, this type of fakery and attempted sanity-by-association is very article-worthy. Good find. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

They are not all mentally ill. This is not just an academic issue. To me, it has a moral aspect. Mental illness is a serious problem, but not all cranks are mentally ill, or frauds. Even James Randi agrees that some practitioners of woo really believe in their "powers." These people aren't insane or necessarily even liars. There is much that we do not yet understand about, e.g., neurology.---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"Made it less Stalin apologetic and more factual. Fuck Stalin, for the record"

You do not make a page "more factual" by removing facts.

In this case, you conveniently removed the passing of the Smith Act, which had absolutely nothing to do with being a Stalin apologetic. One sided history is bad for society. Unsigned by 99.229.232.63, 19:41, November 28, 2015

Hey, a BoN here to fight me! Well, shirts off motherfucker!

Jokes aside though; first things first - fuck Stalin. I mean literally - give his embalmed corpse a dirty sanchez, take a photo of it, and use that photo on your wedding invitations. That level of "fuck him".

Jokes aside though, I'm not about to add any more videos now for a bit. I was, in fact, waiting to see what the community thought - though, video imbeddings of videos like this have never been a problem in the past when done correctly. E.g. theseedits have stood unchallenged (except by a butthurt creationist) since late August, and other users have reverted back to the version with the videos. This is true for a number of pages - though not a swarm of them; there's no risk that I'm about to unleash any linkspam of any kind. My additions tonight are about 90% of the video links I had been waiting to include in this uncontested, previously accepted format. And many of them to articles that could use the work. All of them adding good info - I only ever link QualiaSoup, SciShow or inFact, and only when relevant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Though obviously I appreciate the discussion on their inclusion. I'm certainly not telling you to "fuck off" or anything like that; you raise a valid point. So we can both agree that this is worthwhile exploring in conversation. I, for one, find that the videos - conservatively selected as they are, and never numbering above two in a row - do add to the articles tangibly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the links are bad, its just better to get agreement first :P --"Paravant"Talk & Contribs 00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, buddy. I'll keep that in mind in the future. I suggest you peruse the articles to see what the videos contain, how they stand in terms of formatting and that. With that many additions I'm certain one or two isn't precisely "where it's at". But largely, I did select them with care, and with the starting point that "Allright, I know these few channels are good - here are deliberately succinct, very well phrased introductory videos on these topics that could compliment the already written text on RW.". So, I am at the very opposite end of thinking "Allright, here's a word, let's pick the best youtube result for it and put it in the corresponding article. Goal: several videos for every page on RW.". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to whine about you filling up Recent Changes with template edits. You can request ninja powers to hide those changes, or ask an existing ninja to do it. --Ymir (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As a relatively grown man who headbangs and karate-chops the air to the tunes of swedish ninja metal atleast once a day, I say - let's do this. Level me up to ninja, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yea sure. You have ninja rights now. Remember to remove yourself from bot group afterwards. And if you do something sketchy using bot powerz (eg, italicizing quotes in articles) then heads will roll. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What is bot group, how do I remove myself from it and when do I do so? Also; I've actually been a driving force for de-italicizing on this site since we discussed it originally. I'm a team player, coach! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As I posted in WIGO, an Intel leaker gave The Intercept tons of docs about govt programs generating hundreds of thousands of names for the "terror watch" lists. Holy shit, they had to close comments because the fucking TIs overran the place -- they NEVER close comments on the first day of a story. I was ready to comment and couldn't. They're ranting all over the 700+ comments. These freaks are such goddam pests.---Mona- (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear lord. The perfect storm of an activist movement rallying against people taking prescribed medication as directed, while at the same time consisting entirely of psychiatry patients. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, do you think you could find an eye with more bloodshot in it? That one just doesn't look obvious to me.---Mona- (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just when I look at that eye it doesn't really leap out at me that it's bloodshot.---Mona- (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well if it lept out at you, you'd probably need to just stop taking all your meds anyway - and hatchet open your floorplanks. You know, so you can unearth the reptilian tunnels under your place of residence. Also, part of the TI problem is that these symptoms are supposed to be vague as hell. We're missing the point of we find red eyes that would actually be red enough to warrant medical examination. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The only other picture I could find on Commons was this one, and it's worse for many reasons. It's too dramatically lit, and it's way too redshifted - so I think the redness is actually less obvious in this one (since it's red on orange instead of red on white). I vote that we stick with the one we got - it's not bad, it's actually pretty great. These are vague as fuck pseudomedical symptoms that are meant to figure in the TI dignostic model, which is nonsensical and fails to explain everything. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that makes sense, and I agree that other pic is wrong.---Mona- (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I know, cat-who-shakes-his-paws-as-they-meet-water. It's just that I've wanted to stay very much in the open since the Ruylong debacle; I haven't felt this to be the time for me to go ninja. But I'm happy that you atleast trust me with it, old timer. Much appreciated. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Rev, all these nav bars are editorially unsound. They make the articles look very cluttered, and I hate the appearance. If you don't agree and start removing some of the additional ones you've added recently, I think I'll raise the issue in the Saloon. This affects us site-wide.---Mona- (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! About half the nav bar additions I make are from 0 to 1 navbar, but that's not what you're here about, I figure? On several articles that are long enough and can handle the bars formatting-wise, I've maintained that two (but not more) help to improve the experience for the reader enough that they deserve to stay. I'm with you on the fact that this ought to be discussed - may I be the one to raise this at the Saloon Bar later today? I have some reasons never yet mentioned for why I think the community should consider allowing up to two nav bars when several editorial requirements are met (and never more than two bars). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Go for it! And hey, we did stuff in tandem over at the GG article. That was cool.---Mona- (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sweet! Things can only go so fast on this site (never mind when I'm sitting in the tub with a foam beard, editing from my phone - like I am right now) so it's completely necessary that we may take time to put things together when we need it ^^. And yeah, I was about to undo with the edit summary LOLNOPE. Good call, Mona. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I misread Mona, thinking she was inserting what she was actually reverting, but that page's history is a mess now. But, just to be clear, I do not identify as a postmodernist, but my own research and writing is centered on intellectual traditions that interrogate the imperialist dimensions of Western knowledge production, so I can't see science as something that exists apart from/outside of power, especially as it is expressed along the lines of race/class/gender/sexuality. Peace. AgingHippie(talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply! Also; I didn't mean to forcibly include your opinion in the block log - I thought I'd read you properly, just as you thought you'd read Mona properly. As I understand this - Aneris (of all people) made a good insertion to the page. I saw it, and I thought it could stay. Goonie made Aneris autopatrolled following what he termed as good edits to mainspace - I think he meant this as one of them. Fast forward couple of hours. Typhoon started constantly reverting, whereby Mona constantly fought to restore the page. Typhoon did claim that sources were needed to be added, though Mona could vouch for the correctness of the additions and also appeared to point to sources on the talk page. I stuck my head in and tried to see who appeared to be a "postmodernism apologist", and whoever that was, I was not on their side. So, I stood by Mona.

Regarding postmodernism; I don't identify as one either - nor am I some old school Popperian purebreed. I'm currently studying epistemology at University (with the history of ideas and learning in my backpack), so I'm not at all new to the many fascinating problems that "good old American science" actually faces. I'm also aware that postmodernism (as broad an umbrella term as that is) has had some very noteworthy streaks of hilariously out of control ignorance of even elementary school science, worsened the times postmodernism has also fallen into eccentric sexual analyses of objectivity, empiricism and the rest - that fly right past Freud and even Jung's most feverish auradiagnostics! I mean, there's an incoherency here that not even a postmodernist would or could deny. And in that pluralism there's a lot of their thinking that runs straight into walls. And that's for us to cover, as - with all crankery - it's fringe adherents insist not only that they can understand reality through this prism, but indeed that other ways of understanding it are wrong or meaningless! This is notable as well as funny; there's a reason biology class has yet to scooch over to make room for postmodernism class.

Now, I somewhat share your viewpoints - for example, I'm aware of intersectionality as a valid aspect to this. But the problem is that these people can't even tell if they're right or wrong. The hoax paper is the definition of that - they claim to talk science, but they don't understand science. They can't even tell if they can tell! And as a mere student of honest academic process, that's an absolute fallacy on their part. Now, I'm not pulling the old christian apologetics move here of saying "you can't be critical unless you've read all of our crappy tomes first!", but what I am saying is that "if I were to pose as one of you, and I produce absolute nonsense, you should be able to fucking tell!". That's a serious problem for postmodernism, among many. So, don't worry - I'm not some crazed MRA die-hard popperian empiricist. I'm probably closer to you on this than you'd guess. But the reality is that, just as we make aware the problems of science (we even have a nav for the philosophy of science), we need to make aware the many problems of postmodernism - which has it's own article. An article that - currently - that doesn't even contain half of what is notably snark-worthy. The solution to this isn't revering good criticism.

And really, this isn't "just" about science versus pseudoscience - this is also about good philosophy versus bad philosophy. And important streaks of postmodernist thought run into catastrophic problems there, too. It's a theory of interpretation that's fallen to the wayside, because it requires strange detours in its reasoning, relies on the acceptance of premises that are not widely held or even coherent, and sometimes - it flat out bluescreens halfway through a book. Good philosophy is calling these sides of the postmodernist coin out, for a valid reason. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You might want to tell me, since I've added more books in other articles, always books I have and always using the same template, taken from RW. For once I'm just asking honestly. I was trying to do some good. If this article is wrong then so is every other book recommendation I've made. I undid your undo pending an answer. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: Take a look at Indo-European languages and Runes. They also contain book recommendations by me, using the exact same template, recommending books I have in my possession and have read. Would you also delete that? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for PS-ing again, but two things occurred to me. The first is, that since we've unfortunately met before, you might be guided by personal dislike. I understand the dislike, but since everything I've contributed with the exception of the Middle East is neutral, that is hardly a good reason. I may be wrong of course, but your comment on the undo certainly sounded that way. If you look at Runes you will see a Wikipedia cut and paste in the body of the text, but first of all, that is permitted and second I wrote the original piece anyway. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hej Spökplumpen! First things first: No need to say sorry for "PS-ing" again; I always recommend and indeed suggest that people discuss things with me (with a good tone, of course - like you do here and now). I reply as fast as I can - which sadly isn't always that fast.

The one thing I'm certain of here is that you've misunderstood something - seemingly: who I might be, and/or what I might think of you. So in the interest of time;

No, I don't think we've "met" (remind me with a link to the conversation if we have?)

...and - unless you indeed produce a link to us bitch slapping each other over something I've forgot - further;

No, this isn't anything personal, because - as far as I recall - I know literally nothing about you (beside the fact I've seen your name around the wiki obviously)

You talk about asking an honest question "for once" and you insist that you "were trying to do good" and so on. And you mention the Middle East for some reason? That doesn't sound like an article I've touched even once, talkpage or otherwise?

Before going any further, I feel the need to pause you here just to say: I have no idea what you are talking about. Or well I know that you're talking about my undo of course - a reverted edit which, to the best of my knowledge, was on the Physics Envy page - which has little or nothing to do with "the Middle East". But I've no idea what you stand accused of, nor the veracity of those charges.

Which brings me to the actual undo - I think I misread your addition, and having looked again, it appears your edit is not out of the ordinary. Consider my undo retracted for this reason. I don't need to look at those other links to see my mistake in this case.

I hope this resolves the issue and - unless my memory fails me - I don't think we've even interacted enough yet to have any beef. Though the fact that you name it "unfortunate" that we've met (if we even have) honestly doesn't instill me with much promise. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had encountered you in the endless I-P warring, where I'm not popular. „For once“ and „trying to do good“ were sarcasms aimed at myself. I don't know whether that is common in your part of the world, but in mine it is. But all's well that ends well. I did remember having seen your user name and just assumed I had pissed you off, as I have so many. The cure for that is simply remembering that what drew me to RW in the first place was the fun of it, and it is only an enjoyable hobby. Cheers and peace out Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't notice you're Swedish until I had a look at your User Page. Being Icelandic I learned Danish, not Swedish, so I'd like to ask what Spökplumpen means. Spök reminds me of spøg, but what does the word add up to? And yes, I try to be civilized, but having a temper, I often write things I regret. Hence my - let's call it New Year's promise effective immediately - to read only and contribute only to what really is of interest. As for Theoretical Philosohy: Is there any other kind? :-) Skål Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I was away for a few days so I only now saw your "block message" regarding the "target individuals" sidebar thing. I don't mind you (or anyone else) asking for a "third opinion" on something, but perhaps it might be better to phrase it more neutral next time, because now it came off much more like "I'm having a fight with Mona and please help me fight her", rather than "Mona and I have a disagreement, could you maybe tell us what do you think because I don't think we'll resolve this between the two of us?" Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey buddy! Welcome back :D If you read the TI talk page (with rested eyes) - with particular attention to how very amicably we all pulled together to eventually solve it - you'll probably see that I actually involved you not because this was ANY kind of "fight" with Mona (atleast not in the infinitely worse sense that that word can be used to describe feuds here); I involved you for two general reasons - firstly, because I figure you're on about "equal footing" with both me and Mona (so it's not like running to your exclusive friend to tackle a stranger); and secondly, I involved you because you're no idiot (on the contrary, you're a seriously important contributor here) and thus I know that you'd be able to provide insight on the issue, and because both myself and Mona would have respected your argument no matter whose side you took (if any). And for the record, I wasn't asking for arbitration from you - it appeared as if we were about to build up to finding consensus on the site, and I wanted to start by advertising to the brightest lights on this site if I was even going to (be forced to) kick up dust over this. Turns out, we all decided against anyone kicking up dust - a most wise decision on everyone's part. Mona played no small role in the success of this story (and lesson for all), for the record.

So, I asked you directly because the three of us are on good terms; friendly, even. (And because I know you like ray gun wielding psychics as much as I do!) And sure enough, I did ask you a socratic-ish question (i.e. a question designed to direct your intuition) though the "suggested reading" equally served to allow you to get informed on a debate you hadn't entered yet. Though, I'm obviously not so phony that I won't clearly agree that the question was posed at a time when it appeared that we would do the rule rather than the exception at RW - which is, sadly, to go into right-or-wrong mode. I'm glad my question turned irrelevant soon after (see TI talkpage).

That's all for the context the question was posed by me in. Remember also the context in which you replied to it. You were about to take a break, not because you wanted to (although you did want to) but because you needed to. You'd been forced into needing it, one might even say. Because you had - in witness to your good nature and strong character - spent a few DAYS slamming your head into a wall, fighting for what was right at this site. Certainly you played a central role in making sure we're still here (Mona, me and others). I'm betting you were tired of stupid internet arguments to the point of almost throwing your computer in the trash can and buying a butterchurn instead, you poor, brave man (yes, I'm swooning). And I didn't remember to remember that this could quite possibly be the state of exhaustion you were in when I asked you - which might've made it seem all the more like I was "just the next asshole in line to milk you for conflict". I wasn't, though. And the discussion that followed on the talkpage was won by all participants. It was a loaded (albeit perfectly reasonable) question to pose, BUT it was posed at the worst possible time for you; and in a way that was far too open to interpretation of intent or tone. A mistake by me, plain and simple. Even so - I'd like to apologize to you. You were exhausted; I should've known to step off. So, my bad buddy.

And again, we solved the matter at hand and, frankly, me and Mona even "got closer" from the whole ordeal (I was literally like happy, like pregnant glow happy, when she said she wouldn't bring up certain types of template fighting - the pure bro-ness of that concession shocked me (if I had a case with or without that concession is completely irrelevant). Positive surprise, even though the TI template discussion was never a question of wether we thought the other editor competent. So just a truly cool thing of her to do. Anyways man, welcome back and please reply to this so I know your reaction - and remember, you always get to add and remove letters and use latin too! ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oof, what a wall of text. Relax; no biggie, just saying you could have framed it a little bit better, in my opinion. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to ride your dick here bro, let me do like Kayne and just finish after I've said more than I was asked to ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mind giving me a better source on that? Until then - forget it. Also, you left extra spaces around your period again. You can't keep adding to articles and leaving double and extra spaces in them. Nice work on the articles besides that, though. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we didn't have the doi autolinker (which would require the extra " "). Here's the money quote "Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system." Hipocrite (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, mind giving me a better source on that? A hyperlink to our rules or something of that caliber would be swell. And, not to be nitpicky - but there you go with the extra spaces again. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There are no extra spaces in what I wrote. We don't have a policy allowing red links - we've always allowed them. Hipocrite (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Press edit and view the spacing at the very start of your last two posts, right after the semicolons. Also, my point wasn't that they should be banned. My starting point was that a wholly unsourced article was getting further additions in the form of names with no refs that were wrapped in internal link tags. Notice that I re-inserted the very same internal link the moment this was resolved. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Placing a space after the :'s is standard practice. For example, [2], chosen totally at random. You could have approached the IP to ask him to add a source, as opposed to just deleting things - that IP address has contributed valuable content before, and it would be nice to retain him. Hipocrite (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Though, the reason I ride you specifically on this is that you makeedits where it's not "customary" for arbitrary spaces to sit where they appear outside of edit mode and in the actual article text. All I'm suggesting is essentially that you "spellcheck" when making article additions just to see that tiny things like that don't keep slipping through your net - thanks. Oh, and regarding that BoN - you welcomed him just as I was about to (and that was nice of you). I made it clear that the lack of sourcing was the problem. This is especially true when the BoN addition in question is an unsourced, redlinking name insertion into an article already in dire need of sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, the Islamophobia article should be added to that nav, but I have no idea how to edit templates.---Mona- (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Though, we do have an Islamophobia nav already. Remember, the Islam nav is to categorize the various branches of Islam and islamism - the good and the bad alike. The Islamophobia nav exists to describe those people who themselves discuss an imaginary "Islam" as ideologically and ethnically monolithic as Hitler's Germany - an "Islam" which really doesn't exist. So, adding the Islam nav to the Islamophobia article would be kind of like adding the Science nav to the Pseudoscience article - the point of these paired templates is the fundamental difference in what they cover. If you get my drift. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you mean the opposite, Mona? I.e. adding "Islamophobia" to the list of articles that appear on the Islam template? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Even so, in that case the suggestion would be on par with naming Pseudoscience as a sub-category of Science. When, again, the fact is that Islamophobics think they understand Islam like Pseudoscientists think they understand Science. The difference, as we all know, is staggering. And there's no shortage of very valid criticisms against Islam. But the invalid ones go under Islamophobia, not Criticism of Islam or of Religion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! What does Spökplumpen mean? Cheers and all the best Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey buddy! I'm so sorry for not having given you the full reply I wanted since the moment I saw what you've written. I'm currently fighting a fever, so I haven't felt I had the energy to produce the tall and honest reply I wanted you to get from me (an answer of a fully positive and even friendly tone, for that matter). Hypocritically I've still been doing other things at the wiki, replying to other messages and leaving your questions like gaping holes on my talkpage. I'm a born procrastinator, and when I want to make sure something is done well by me, that usually just means blasting past the deadline at the speed of light. Spökplumpen is a name, of no other than this fellow. "Spök" means "ghost" in Swedish, and "plumpen" in this case means "blot" (context: inkblot). So instead of the inkblot ("bläckplumpen") he's - for some reason - named the ghost blot ("spökplumpen"). So, it was just Sorte Slyngel in Swedish. Also, I was able to understand what you wrote to me - scandinavian languages are the best! :D So anyways, give me time to muster you the full reply you deserve. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? Cool. Have you read Zealot by Aslan, and if so, what do you think? Peace. AgingHippie(talk) 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've read Zealot. It is wholly derivative. Virtually everything in it I learned in the late 1980s. (BA in religious studies.) The identity of the author (and his inflated claims about his credentials) are what made it a thing.---Mona- (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Funny meeting you here. :-) But since I took a look, and haven't read a novel in years, except when required, is this Aslan figure somebody one should know about? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Reza Aslan is a Muslim-American who wrote this book on Jesus -- Zealot -- to great fanfare. The clip of how he was treated on Fox "News" is notorious and appalling -- they think a Muslim writing a book about Jesus is nearly a crime. That said, I don't much care for Aslan. He out-and-out lied about his credentials, he's not a careful thinker and debater, and he's really in it for the fame and fortune of being this pop Muslim. ---Mona- (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually checking out whether our mutual friend the Reverend had something to say to me. I'm not stalking you. But I've left enough suggestions on your own page to last a year. I give my own personal Custer guarantee, that the suggestions are good, but nobody has the time to digest all that in any reasonable time :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ages ago, actually last September, we had a pleasant conversation about the historicity of Jesus. I found your contributions erudite and amusing. So I've found out to my satisfaction that you are one of the probably few here in RW, with whom I've conversed and not offended at one time or other. :-) But if you've recovered enough to answer, I'm curious to know, how theoretical philosophy is different from any other kind of philosophy. An answer would be welcome, and I would like to have your permission to engage in conversations with you just to practice my Danish, although my experience has been that Swedes understand me better than I understand them. :-) As for me, I don't believe I've ever made any significant contributions to RW. When I wasn't engaged in insulting people - a thing of the past, I hope - I mostly left small comments to amuse myself, and Icelandic humor doesn't travel well. :-) Skål Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I checked Mona's page since I was looking at my contributions, and it had been changed. Otherwise my edits were mostly current. I seem to be a conversation stopper, except when I insult somebody, which I've tried not to do for a while. Otherwise people read (if they read) my last lousy joke and lose interest. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I see! I vaguely remember a very nice conversation on that topic, so if you were in this thing I think I remember, then that was nice. ^^ I'll reply to your questions as I get to them, though to help quell your boredom at waiting for slowpoke Percy to type - I've got a question for you in return (in a fully nice spirit). I haven't missed the fact that you speak of a "past", seemingly a relatively recent such, in which you would (one way or the other, I don't expect you to take or assign blame per sé as I'm not asking to revive any conflict) end up in scrapes with some users or other - over some certain pages or other.

Now, I don't mean for you to provide any statements that could make any other user step in here and be offended (and maybe offend you in return); I just ask because, well, you and I haven't ever spoken in close contact, and you've recently given me many questions on my talkpage - all of them nice, and all of them which I intend to reply to. But I was just like, what's this surge of activity, and what was that other "conflict-y" stuff (disregarding any fingerpointing) that you seem to have stepped away from now?

Also, I've gathered as much as you and Mona burying some kind of hatchet (over what - I don't know), and regardless that's also nice to hear, because the most valued property of an RW editor could be having the ability to concede points, to revise their negative views on others, to take it upon themselves to step back from a topic they're passioned about (read: to not be Ruylong) for the sake of the positive vibe in the community and so on.

So I'm really just asking you because I don't know about any of this and it's probably going to play a part in me understanding who you are to others and why you're so nice to me now? And you are nice to me, which is nice. So it's really like - considering how nice you are to me as of late, I feel the desire to get some background from you, which is in itself nice.

I don't ask you to provide a story to be judged by me or anyone else, nor do I say this to invite other people from crashing in here and having caveats. I don't mean to put you, or them, through that. I'm really just interested because you've been contacting me a lot, and it's been nice that you have done so, and I've seen you and Mona get along and such. So... What's that all about?

And, for the record, you don't have to be overly detailed, you don't have to be controversial, and you don't have to defend yourself. I don't know abouthing about you so your honor isn't sullied in my book. It's just like, what have you been up to and what motivated this positive change from you (and why are you writing me - which is nice of you to be doing). I call it a positive change even though I don't know if you were "negative" before that change; it's really the way you seem to be putting it. Unless I misunderstand. Vague, no? Well, you can be vague too in replying. If you feel like doing so at all - you're allowed to limit what you want to say in response to this. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, there's no message in my having archived 89.000 characters of my talk page. I archive regularly because my talk page gets way, way too long. I have a strong editor streak and love concision; I hack away at everything!---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The short but fairly complete story is, that I got dragged into the interminable discussion about Israel and Palestine. I have my own opinions on that one, and they are in almost complete opposition to Mona's. I vaguely remember another discussion, but I-P is mainly it. The I-P discussion is very acrimonious, and since I have a temper, I gave as good as I got. Even at my age I have not yet mastered the technique of counting to twenty before hitting „Save page“. So, yes, I have been insulting to many, but Mona got most of it. Since I don't think I'm overly cruel in real life, I just got tired of warring, and made peace, which has held until now. Mona deserves half the credit for that, of course, it takes two. My problem is, at least in real life - I don't quite know how that translates across the net - that I do have some ability to sting. Face to face I can control that. The Internet is faceless. But, I also have a nicer side, and I have a sense of humor, although experience tells me that people have to get used to that. :-) I hope this answered something. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, I thought above you were saying your contributions at my talk page had been moved -- I did just archive a ton of stuff, and just now archived yet more. I didn't want that stuff about/from the idiot UK lawyer-in-training ranting about this site easily visible. That sort needs to be starved of oxygen/attention.---Mona- (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I just saw that I wasn't current. It turned out to be the Reverend's contribution. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec)@The venerable Percy PS: I have a tendency towards self-irony, so general statements like „one of the few I haven't insulted“ should be taken with a grain of salt, but like all self-irony, there's truth in it too. Just saying it again, my sense of humor is an acquired taste. (For an example, see Derrida's law in Matter. That joke is surrealistic, but I wrote to amuse myself. :-) I can say in all honesty, that I don't hate anyone on RW, and as for Ryulong, he or she is just a name to me. I haven't bothered to check that out. Mona and I have a deal that I will pull Avenger out of the vandal bin as soon as he gives me a personal promise to contain himself - Avenger is a nice guy, but he has a very short fuse. He's still contemplating, which I take to be a good sign. Mona, for her part, will not throw him in the bin again until he's actually sinned. OK, I think you have a fair self-description. For further details, you can just check what I've written. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)